A key difference between Iraq and Vietnam

Via Glenn Reynolds, Donald Sensing quotes American Thinker on a very important distinction between Vietnam and Iraq:

It doesn't matter how we got there. It doesn't matter how you think you were lied to. It doesn't matter if you think there was a connection between Sadam and Al-Qaeda. The only thing that matters now is that both Al-Qaeda and Iran and the terrorist groups they back and inspire believe that Iraq is their decisive battle. They have chosen it as the place where they will defeat America, and unlike the Viet Cong, they will not stay put. They will follow us home.
Yes, they will, because if you think 9/11 still "counts," they already have.

posted by Eric on 11.06.06 at 09:35 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4195






Comments


Either fight in Iraq, or fight at home, seems to be a logical conclusion,
the choice is ours.
Terrorists do not wear uniforms, consider themselves civilians and consider American civilians the enemy.
Regards
Hugh

Hugh   ·  November 7, 2006 08:38 AM

This argument is rubbish! We heard the same thing in the Korean War and Vietnam. "If we don't stop them here in Korea, then we'll have to try to stop them on the shores of California." (There's a line like that in the movie 'The Bridges at Toko-Ri'). The pressence of U.S. troops in Iraq is creating anti-American terrorists, and their numbers grow the longer we stay.

Chocolatier   ·  November 7, 2006 02:44 PM

"The pressence of U.S. troops in Iraq is creating anti-American terrorists."

Wasn't that essentially Osama bin Laden's argument about U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia?

Where did the 9/11 hijackers come from?

Eric Scheie   ·  November 7, 2006 04:07 PM

Yes, that was and is Osama's argument. He has always said that he became an anti-American terrorist because U.S. troops stayed in Saudi Arabia well after the Gulf War ended and made it clear that we wanted permanent military bases there. Although Osama lies all the time, on this point I think he spoke the truth, because this viewpoint is widely held in Saudi Arabia. Most Arabs felt that the pressence of an 'infidel' army in their holy land was offensive.

Chocolatier   ·  November 7, 2006 05:40 PM

Well what are all these people doing living next to militarily crucial oil supplies if they don't want to be bothered?

Vietnam was being cocky - Iraq is being desperate.

Petroleum est potestas.

Will   ·  November 7, 2006 08:19 PM

Chocolatier: I don't buy your argument. Someone said something similar in the past, and they were wrong. But, in this case, based on previous history and the enemy's nature, it seems much more likely to be true today. What was said about the enemy in Viet Nam doesn't matter.

Will: If we just wanted the oil we could have purchased it, or, if for some reason, we had to control the oil (something we don't have to do with any other material, despite the economic importance of other raw and manufactured imported goods), we could have easily taken and fortified the oil wells, something we've placed remarkably little emphasis on, all things considered.

Jon Thompson   ·  November 7, 2006 08:24 PM


March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits